Because Gallen's swinging arm which missed wasn't just as potentially dangerous as Vatuvei's shoulder that connected. I'm not arguing intent either so it's rather irrelevant.
Sure if he connected. I don't recall the incident but by the sounds of it he's lucky he didn't connect. I'm against the notion that players should be suspended based upon whether the act results in an injury to the opposing player. I understand what you're saying about Gallen but I think that's just taking it way over the top and players should only be charged on what they've actually done and Gallen didn't touch anyone.
Nobody said it should be based upon injury. It should be based upon intent but injury should be factored in as recompense for a team losing a player. Your idea of justice seems to be punishing a player based on the act they commit. My idea of justice is punishing a player based on the act they commit and also considering how it disadvantaged the other team. You say potential for danger should be factored in rather than injury because injury is lottery. Are you seriously telling me Gallen missing wasn't a lottery? He missed because he his aim was so shit that he went right over the top of Nielsen's head. If he connected you're possibly looking at a send off. And you certainly couldn't argue that Gallen's intent was any less than Vatuvei's. If anything there was more intent. Swinging arm, well above 10 inches above legal contact, and he has a history of it.
